I think the reason I like Paul so much is because of what everybody else has already said on this forum in different ways- he is a performer. He likes being in front of the public. I like Lennon in different ways, but Paul is much more accessible. I think that 's the reason people like him so much. George certainly didn't feel comfortable in that regard. I do think Ringo enjoys performing. It's a shame John didn't live long enough for us to see what would have happened after his 1980 comeback.

Paul holds himself so well in the limelight. I can't think of anybody else that handles fame as well as Paul has. It's really quite extraordinary.
I love the songs all four have written, but Macca seems to be the complete package. (Songwriter, performer, etc.)

EddieV wrote:John often after the split talked bad about the Beatles. Paul never said bad things about the Beatles!!

OR about his bandmates, no matter how upset he was with them!

difference is that Paul keeps his criticism private, whereas JL was very public, especially in the early 70s

Yes but Paul is the shallowest of the four. You can never be sure if he's telling the truth or not. At least with John, what you see is what you get. George got abit too cynical about the fishbowl life of being in the Beatles for my liking.

Also Paul married a woman (HMM) that makes Yoko Ono look like Mother Teresa. John would be laughing at Paul wherever he is.

difference is that Paul keeps his criticism private, whereas JL was very public, especially in the early 70s

On the contrary, Mini. That, regarding the language he (John) used, is exactly what makes me doubt his honesty, not to mention his maturity. Whatever it is you've got against Heather is beyond me. I don't think John was in any position to laugh at anyone, after posing naked in front of the whole world in some, let's call it...INTERESTING positions, or after posing to that ridicolous picture with the pig - Paul never stooped THAT low.[/b]

Last edited by mi on Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

They all did silly things in the early-70s. Paul put two beetles f*****g on the back cover of Ram, saying f*** the Beatles.

the pig picture was quite witty, but How Do You Sleep I find inexcusable. Paul was more subtle in his criticism of John, but John wasn't a very subtle guy.

And I don't get the criticism of Heather (I forget who said that). If she was stifling his creativity or he was unhappy then you might have a point. But he's writing some of the best stuff of his career, and seems young, healthy and happy. So to criticise Heather I think is very misguided

May sweet memories of friends from the pastAlways comes to you, when you look for them

Mini wrote:Yes but Paul is the shallowest of the four. You can never be sure if he's telling the truth or not. At least with John, what you see is what you get. George got abit too cynical about the fishbowl life of being in the Beatles for my liking.

Also Paul married a woman (HMM) that makes Yoko Ono look like Mother Teresa. John would be laughing at Paul wherever he is.

Crikey, you remind me of that "reviewer" of some American newspaper someone posted a link to a while ago, who said John would be "laughing at Paul from across Abbey Road" or some such garbage. How come so many people seem to know exactly what John would be doing were he alive still? I must admit I'm getting sick and tired of these kind of statements. One of John's strengths (or to put it neutral, aspects of his personality) was that he was not predictable - so how can we know what he would be up to now, at 65? I think not even Yoko does...

Also, John himself sometimes contradicted (unconsciously or deliberately) things he had said at some earlier point, so I'm not too sure about "what you see is what you get". He was more blunt, but certainly not simple. And as to Paul, I think you misunderstand his personality. He is not a liar - he is diplomatic and he is a storyteller. I think you can see this if you watch "Anthology", for instance. When he talks about some episode of the past, he might add or leave out the odd detail or exaggerate a little, just because it sounds better or fits in better with the general idea of the conversation. Sometimes, he catches himself and rectifies a little ("no, wait, that's wrong, actually what happened was..."). I think if you can read between the lines, you can easily guess what's right and what's slightly "adorned". There are people who can handle this and others who can't (and then resort to calling him "shallow").

It's the start of a journeyTo a much better placeAnd this wasn't badSo a much better placeWould have to be special...

EddieV wrote:John often after the split talked bad about the Beatles. Paul never said bad things about the Beatles!!

Yeah John always seemed kinda bitter and dismissive about it all. Even George during the Anthology reunion - do you remember when they all got back in the studio listening to parts of the original Abbey Road master tapes, and George Martin turns up one of the faders on Golden Slumbers to reveal a piano, he says something like "that's you Paul". And of course then the vocal fader comes up and Paul is singing. And then George Harrison makes some sort of petty remark like "sounds like he played EVERYTHING on that album", or something to that effect...it was in a rather derogatory tone. Paul gives him a funny look and everyone begins to look a bit miffed and rattled. So much for the lighthearted banter and warm fuzzies they were there to brew up.

Paul seemed to talk up the *positive* throughout all those Anthology interviews, George sounds like he had misgivings about the whole thing, I think he said from the Sgt Pepper sessions he didn't really want to be there anymore. Paul comes across as a far more positive person.

George's wit. love it.
i think the remark was far from petty... Paul was a control freak, that's what George didn't like, and the fact that(i read somewhere) Paul would come in and "rubbish" all Georges solos ,and re-record them so mostly only he would play on the later records?
What a douche...

If he wanted to make records by himself, he should've ***censored*** left then and there...

Crikey, you remind me of that "reviewer" of some American newspaper someone posted a link to a while ago, who said John would be "laughing at Paul from across Abbey Road" or some such garbage. How come so many people seem to know exactly what John would be doing were he alive still? I must admit I'm getting sick and tired of these kind of statements. One of John's strengths (or to put it neutral, aspects of his personality) was that he was not predictable - so how can we know what he would be up to now, at 65? I think not even Yoko does...[/quote]

I quite agree. It's pretty foolish to claim to know what dead people WOULD have thought. It is also very convenient when you don't have a stronger argument to prove your point - there is no counter-argument to that...
What annoys me is about those "John would be laughing at Paul" remarks is that they make it sound like John was superior on Paul, or on everyone else. Like he was some kind of a saint who did absolutely NOTHING foolish or mean in his life. Yeah, right! Just because he's dead people tend to forget that he was only human, like the rest of us, and by no means superior on Paul or on anyone else.

For me lots of things made me love paul more than the rest!(Even though I do love the rest!)His songs are so peaceful and happy!And his the several rockers that he had were definetly grand rockers!I love Paul's voice the best too!And not only that but he was and is so sweet!He is really just perfect in everyway I can't even go on!